U.S. Judge Assails School Officials for Neglect of Handicapped

By ARNOLD H. LUBASCH

Published: June 27, 1990

A Federal judge castigated New York City school officials yesterday for their ''stubborn failure'' to provide appropriate education for handicapped children.

The judge, Eugene H. Nickerson of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, rejected an effort by Schools Chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez to delay action in the case for six months. The judge raised a threat of substantial fines if the city did not comply with his orders in a class-action case that began 11 years ago.

Mr. Fernandez had requested the delay to devise a plan of his own, instead of continuing a court-authorized agreement to resolve problems through consultations with the plaintiffs, said two of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Michael A. Rebell and John C. Gray Jr. Special Classes Mandated The lawsuit was filed by handicapped children, their parents and advocacy groups in an effort to compel the Board of Education to follow laws that call for evaluating handicapped children and providing them with special classes or related services within 60 days of their referral to school authorities.

Progress has been made, the lawyers said, but they noted that many handicapped children must still wait a long time for evaluation and placement. They added that the city school system had 116,000 children with physical, mental and emotional handicaps, about 11 percent of the school population.

Deputy Chancellor Stanley S. Litow issued a statement that said the school authorities wanted a six-month moratorium from meeting with the plaintiffs to ''concentrate all of our efforts on the construction of a plan to improve the delivery of special education services.''

In his ruling, Judge Nickerson recalled the long history of the case, which was filed against the Board of Education in 1979.

'Stubborn Failure' Charged

''Through these actions,'' the judge said, ''the handicapped children of the City of New York have sought for 11 years to enforce their rights to an appropriate public education. The record presented to the court over the years reveals the city defendants' stubborn failure to fulfill their obligations under the law and under this court's decrees.''

The judge instructed a magistrate to hold hearings on ''the extent to which the city defendants are in contempt.''

''This court does not believe it is powerless to enforce the decrees it enters,'' he said. ''No doubt substantial fines might draw the attention of the city defendants and others to the obligations of the city defendants to comply with the court's orders.''